gps/comm

[silkyd]

I see Garmin has a gps/comm IFR...for around 3k...does that mean if you do not have a VOR you can be certified ifr with only this Nav ... do you need more than 1 means of Nav. Or should I put in a vor and get the 296 or something similar. But not much room in my panel. The gps/com would not take up much space!
I would like to get my 52 170b certified so i can get my IFR ticket with it...going with the idea it is great experience...not for heavy weather.
Does any one have an opinion?

[GAHorn]

You didn't say which model Garmin GPS you are considering. It makes a difference. Garmin makes several models which include a VOR... AND a GPS.
All that's necessary (navigation-wise) to make your plane IFR is a VOR. GPS cannot, by itself, be sole navigation and meet IFR requirements. It's a supplemental type of navigation.
If you want to keep it inexpensive simply get any VOR installed you can afford and have room for,....then after you get your ticket and when you're ready to operate, use a portable GPS for reference while using the VOR to stay legal for primary nav.
(Keep in mind the other equipment requirements for IFR. See FAR 91.205 for general equipment requirements and FAR 91.201(d), 91.411, and 91.413 for pitot/static certification, transponder certification, and altmeter certification.)

FAR 91 is available electronically via:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 10&idno=14

[silkyd]

i know that the handheld models are vfr and you would need the vor

i have seen the 400 and 500 series garmins that are the vor/gps combo you describe $$$$$...i am wondering about the GNC 300XL ...in the text it say's

Today's Garmin® GNC® 300XL TSO takes its place with other navigation and communication pioneers, combining a powerful 12 parallel channel receiver with a 760 channel VHF transceiver with a C129a, A1 IFR certified moving map GPS/comm. This marries two of Garmin's product development strengths: crisp, high-detail moving map technology and Garmin's legacy of proven, approach-certified IFR GPS receivers.

Do you believe with this model you would still need a VOR?

[trake]

Get a used King 170b with a glideslope and marker beacon. If youre an IFR student you want to be able to fly ILS approaches [as well as localizer and VOR approaches]. Get a Garman or a Lowrance portable and put it on the glareshield or on the yoke-thats the cheapest and most capable way. If you have any money left buy a ICOM com and a audio panel

[zero.one.victor]

A nice nav radio for an application like this would be a Narco 12 or 112, this is a stand-alone VOR reciever all self-contained in the 3-1/8" indicator. Some versions even have a marker-beacon receiver & lights built into them. The Val INS 422 is similar but all digital, with blinky lights instead of needles. The Val lists for around $2K, probably the most cost effective way to go. Add one of these to that IFR-approved GPS com & a transponder, and you're good to go!

Eric

[GAHorn]

i know that the handheld models are vfr and you would need the vor

i have seen the 400 and 500 series garmins that are the vor/gps combo you describe $$$$$...i am wondering about the GNC 300XL ...in the text it say's

Today's Garmin® GNC® 300XL TSO takes its place with other navigation and communication pioneers, combining a powerful 12 parallel channel receiver with a 760 channel VHF transceiver with a C129a, A1 IFR certified moving map GPS/comm. This marries two of Garmin's product development strengths: crisp, high-detail moving map technology and Garmin's legacy of proven, approach-certified IFR GPS receivers.

Do you believe with this model you would still need a VOR?

GPS is not approved for sole-source navigation.

FAR 91.205 (d) (2) (IFR equipment requirements) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. Satellites (GPS) do not qualify as a ground facility.
See also, Advisory Circular AC 90-94. GPS is only supplemental navigation. You MUST have VOR (or TACAN, etc.)

From the FAA Safety Advisor, Frequently asked questions, http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/GPSSafetyAdv.htm :
What if there's no working VOR aboard, but I'm in radar contact, am I legal to operate IFR?

No, GPS is still supplemental navigation. VOR and/or DME, ADF are still required.

[cessna170bdriver]

I don't intend this as an argument, but I suppose whether or not a VOR or ADF is required could depend on which Fed you ask and how he interprets the rules. These rules were written when there wasn't satellite navigation. ALL facilities were ground facilities. When I was in ground school for my instrument rating in 1990, the instructor said the rule could be intepreted to mean you didn't have to have a nav radio at all if you planned to navigate via vectors, and if an approach was required then your destination would have to have at least one radar approach available. I suppose this kind of operation would require a transponder and comm radio at a minimum. Not smart, but legal.

Nowadays, with GPS being legal for enroute, and many GPS-only approaches available, an argument could be made that and IFR approach approved GPS would be sufficient nav gear to file IFR (/G equipment)

Miles

[GAHorn]

I don't believe it's a matter of individual inspector interpretation, Miles. It's specifically stated in the FAR and pretty clearly addressed by several Advisory Circulars such as the one to which I previously posted. Even in a radar environment, a navigational radio suitable for use with ground facilities is required. (I've heard some instructors make that comment before, but it's without basis. Reliance upon radar vectors do not obviate the need for a nav radio. The ultimate responsibility for primary navigation remains with the PIC, even should ATC offer radar vectors. Supposition: ATC radar is not a primary means of navigation. (Heck, it's not even a primary means of separation!) What if comm failure should occur? What if radar should fail?)
GPS approaches being published at an airport does not guarantee that the approach will be available. GPS receivers approved for approach procedures must be capable of predictive RAIM, which may not be available at the time of arrival for many reasons such as satellite geometry, failure, or simple terrain. At present, there remains the requirement for an alternative type of approach procedure.
Then there's the requirements stated in AC90-94 which state: "Any required alternate airport should have an approved instrument approach
procedure, other than GPS, which is anticipated to be operational at the estimated arrival time. The aircraft should have the appropriate avionics installed and operational to receive the navigational aids. The pilot is responsible for checking NOTAMs to determine the operational status of the alternate airport navigational aids."
Not even the latest and greatest avionics-equipped jets coming off the assy line as we speak, are certified for IFR flight without VOR's.

WAAS might someday remove the requirement, but at present that remains only a hopeful plan.

[mbram]

I have been considering the same upgrade from the 250xl to the 300xl
The avionics shop suggested the KNS 80 for ground based nav. The KNS 80 with glide slope is running about $1700 with a CDI the total cost would be about $5000 plus installation. A current data base is required for IFR. Revision service from Jeppesen is $384 to $489 depending on coverage.
http://www.jeppesen.com/wlcs/applicatio ... d=CNS4A2A2


http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html

all the approaches that can be used by GPS now contain "GPS" in the title (e.g., "VOR or GPS RWY 24," "GPS RWY 24," or "RNAV (GPS) RWY 24"). During these GPS approaches, underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on or monitored (monitoring of the underlying approach is suggested when equipment is available and functional).

[cessna170bdriver]

Thanks for the clarification George. I guess that's reason for the inclusion of VOR/ILS recievers in the "all in one" radios ala Garmin 430/etc. I'm curious though why the rule is so vague, and can't just come out and say that a VOR or ADF is required. (I'm not sure you'd get very far in today's system with ADF only ). LORAN is "ground-based" but it seems to further from being a "sole means of navigation" than GPS.

As for myself, I have a VOR/ILS, ADF, and LORAN in the panel, plus a hand-held nav/comm, portable GPS, and FOM (finger on map) all of which are up and running anytime the airplane is up and running.

Miles

[GAHorn]

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html
all the approaches that can be used by GPS now contain "GPS" in the title (e.g., "VOR or GPS RWY 24," "GPS RWY 24," or "RNAV (GPS) RWY 24"). During these GPS approaches, underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on or monitored (monitoring of the underlying approach is suggested when equipment is available and functional).

It's critically important not to read a sentence out of context and then leap to a desired conclusion.

That comment has been read out of context. That comment is in regard to how a GPS OVERLAY approach is conducted...not in regard to required aircraft equipment for IFR flight. An example of what they mean is: If there is a DME associated with the VOR/DME approach that the GPS OVERLAY approach overlays....then the aircraft does not have to have a DME installed. But that does not mean a VOR does not have to be installed and operational. In fact, the sentence is followed by: "NOTE-
Any required alternate airport must have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly."

While conducting a GPS OVERLAY approach, the underlying ground facilities don't have to be used while conducting THAT approach (if RAIM is available), but that equipment must be installed and operational, for the other reasons already stated. (In fact, this link which you posted alludes to one of the shortcomings of GPS, on page 1-1-15, para 2., where in regard to the use of a ground-based system known as LORAN it says, "More recently, concern regarding the vulnerability of Global Positioning System (GPS) and the consequences of losing GPS on the critical U.S. infrastructure (e.g., NAS) has renewed and refocused attention on LORAN." (gahorn says, "Yeaaaa-LORAN!")
That link also states "Properly certified GPS equipment may be used as a supplemental means of IFR navigation for domestic en route, terminal operations, and certain instrument approach procedures (IAPs)."

In chapter 1-1-19, para (d) 1. (b). the same reference states, " Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight." It goes on to say that if RAIM capable, the alternate means does not have to be actively monitored. But it must be installed and operational.

And finally, referencing all the way back to FAR 91.205, the link states, "2. GPS domestic en route and terminal IFR operations can be conducted as soon as proper avionics systems are installed, provided all general requirements are met. The avionics necessary to receive all of the ground-based facilities appropriate for the route to the destination airport and any required alternate airport must be installed and operational. Ground-based facilities necessary for these routes must also be operational."

[mrpibb]

A little while back the same discussion arose with conversation on what to install in my aircraft to make it IFR. It was brought to my attention that you cannot use gps as sole navigation. I didn't know then, but do now know, and its understandable.
Asside from the FARs I look at it this way, and keep in mind this is my thoughts. GPS navigation in relation to ground based navigation for private/commercial use is relatively new, remember until recently the MILITARY ALLOWED increase resolution in order to fly gps accurately. GPS is dependent on those things in near space, floating about hopefully dodging the crap thats still up there, pretty soon flying in orbit will be like driving on the BQE.
All it would take is for a few satellites to break to lose the resolution needed for accurate navigation because the military (primary users) will want the remaining band-with for themselves. So maybe in a week or two they'll send some space mechanics to fix em. Now VOR stations, land based transmitters, as reliable as your walkie talkie, can be get to by a rusty pickup truck, probably can be fix in a hour from parts found at radio shack, don't need a space suit ( unless in New York city), and there is also a Gazillion of em.
I know that by my airport STW and SAX will alway be there unless the rusty pickup hits it, but as far as satellite #14 and 22, who knows.

Remember, If you can't trust the governments of the world WHO can you trust?